The plaintiff employer brought a motion to continue an ex parte Mareva injunction against two former employees, alleging they engaged in fraudulent schemes involving payroll and expense accounts.
The plaintiff also moved to strike certain evidence produced by the defendants, including surreptitious recordings and confidential documents.
The court dismissed the motion to strike, noting that illegally obtained evidence may be admissible in civil proceedings, but ordered the defendants to maintain the confidentiality of the documents.
The court dismissed the motion to continue the Mareva injunction, finding that the plaintiff failed to make full and frank disclosure on the ex parte motion and failed to demonstrate a real risk of dissipation of assets.
